search_merge_requests

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is read-only. The description adds that it performs a full-text search but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, or result format. With annotations covering safety, the description provides minimal extra context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence followed by the API endpoint, making it very concise. However, it lacks some context about output or additional options, which slightly reduces its completeness. Still, it is efficiently front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 4 parameters with full schema descriptions, no output schema, and a moderate number of siblings, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It does not mention the return type (list of merge requests) or potential filters beyond state. It covers the basics but leaves gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters. The tool description does not add meaningful information beyond what is already in the schema, such as clarifying the full-text query nature. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches merge requests by full-text query within a project or group, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_merge_requests or search_issues, which are listed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides an API mapping but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_merge_requests, search_issues, or search_blobs. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.